Coming in this Wednesday's Shale Truth Interview segment, Elizabeth Stanton, senior economist with Synapse Energy discusses why a Department of Energy consultant's report claiming there will be economic benefits for the United States from building liquified natural gas export terminals is incorrect. Synapse is a consulting firm that examines energy and environmental issues. Stanton co-authored a white paper that examined a DOE consultant's report on the economic impacts of exporting shale gas.According to Stanton profits from shale gas exports would be limited to the gas industry. Stanton also says stock ownership in the natural gas industry is not broadly shared in the United States and that most Americans would not see any earnings as the result of developing LNG export terminals.Catch up on the entire Shale Truth Series at http://bit.ly/ShaleTruth• Energy expert Arthur Berman• Landscape restoration specialist Leslie Sauer • Cornell University Professor Anthony Ingraffea• Senior economist with Synapse Energy, Dr. Elizabeth StantonThe Delaware Riverkeeper Network will present a new segment as part of this series every Wednesday at http://bit.ly/ShaleTruth

EVEN if the exports of natural gas are a wash, there are so many other factors that will make it improve the economy. New jobs, royalties for property owners, growth of natural gas company stock just to name a few. Just like a politician they're only conveying the information to help prove their point rather than ALL of the information.

Those who own producing land are getting royalties.Those who own stock or get income from invested pension plans profit.Some state agencies are getting royalties which are being reinvested into resources. (PFBC and PGC being examples)

franklin wrote:Americans do see earnings from the gas and exportation.

Those who own producing land are getting royalties.Those who own stock or get income from invested pension plans profit.Some state agencies are getting royalties which are being reinvested into resources. (PFBC and PGC being examples)

very little.

royalties are typically 1 to2 cents on the dollar.

very few Americans own overseas stocks even through Mutual funds or ETF's.

and the vast majority of land owners cannot sell the land afterwards due to the liability for contamination which has no statute of limitations.

you know the largest owner of Marcellus Shale land right now ? - the Royal Bank of Scotland.

PSU found that outside of the top 10 corporate PA landowners, just 0.5% of PA Shale lands are owned by PA residents, all else is owned by outside legal entities.

to think that this widely benefits individual Americans is just laughable.

franklin wrote:Americans do see earnings from the gas and exportation.

Those who own producing land are getting royalties.Those who own stock or get income from invested pension plans profit.Some state agencies are getting royalties which are being reinvested into resources. (PFBC and PGC being examples)

very little.

royalties are typically 1 to2 cents on the dollar.

very few Americans own overseas stocks even through Mutual funds or ETF's.

and the vast majority of land owners cannot sell the land afterwards due to the liability for contamination which has no statute of limitations.

you know the largest owner of Marcellus Shale land right now ? - the Royal Bank of Scotland.

PSU found that outside of the top 10 corporate PA landowners, just 0.5% of PA Shale lands are owned by PA residents, all else is owned by outside legal entities.

to think that this widely benefits individual Americans is just laughable.

The legal minimum of royalties for property owners is 12.5%. Most leases negotiated in the last 2 years are closer to 18%.

I'd like the see the information saying that .5% of leased property is owned by pa residents. From my experience in this industry working with property owners 1 on 1 I find this extremely hard to believe, especially seeing first hand where the wells are and seeing residential property right around them.

At one point recently (not sure if it changed) Mr AJ Palumbo was the largest individual property owner in the state of Pennsylvania and he was making 1mil a month in royalty income.

"Most Americans won't see earnings as the result of developing LNG exports."

No kidding. Most won't see DIRECT earnings. The same is true of EVERY industry. But SOME will see direct earnings, and most will/are seeing indirect improvements in the economies.

I mean, I know lots of people who got some lease money. Nobody got rich over it, but it helps. Heck, the STATE got lots of lease money. And that results in either more state services, and/or lower taxes, which theoretically benefits us all.

There are, of course, negatives too. And ultimately, like everything, it's about whether the benefits are worth the cost. But outright claiming zero benefits (or zero costs) immediately categorizes that claim into the "biased rhetoric" category, which should be immediately dismissed.

ryguyfi wrote:The legal minimum of royalties for property owners is 12.5%. Most leases negotiated in the last 2 years are closer to 18%.

I'd like the see the information saying that .5% of leased property is owned by pa residents. From my experience in this industry working with property owners 1 on 1 I find this extremely hard to believe, especially seeing first hand where the wells are and seeing residential property right around them.

At one point recently (not sure if it changed) Mr AJ Palumbo was the largest individual property owner in the state of Pennsylvania and he was making 1mil a month in royalty income.

The Trusts I manage get 1-2 cents on the $ of the refined sale price - yes you are right -probably 12 to 18% of the unrefined, undistributed price. But of course the drillers sell to their own parent co who charges for distribution, warehousing, refinement etc who then sells on to another subsidiary for wholesale or retail sale.

There are, of course, negatives too. And ultimately, like everything, it's about whether the benefits are worth the cost. But outright claiming zero benefits (or zero costs) immediately categorizes that claim into the "biased rhetoric" category, which should be immediately dismissed.

it is.

but most of the studies i've read and residents complaints i've heard (and received) is a) the concentration of the income benefits and b) the potential widespread clean up costs.

in short, if I live local and I don't have a lease, why am I eventually through Town, State or Federal taxes (or all three) going to have to pay for the de-contamination.

The land that our Rights and Minerals Trust's own effectively can never be re-zoned for anything until decontamination is proven.

and you can bet that if your neighbour doesn't have a lease and his land gets contaminated, he'll sue your ass.

Petrolium Products are a comodity although there is some variability in quality/desirability of the raw product.

Because there is a global market, price is set by global supply and global demand.

The idea of energy independence and lower prices in the U.S. because petrolium is produced here is a fairy tail.

It is only good business to export natural gas to where they can sell it for more money if the difference in price justifies the added cost of liquifying and shipping.

If anyone were under an illusion that the wealth that comes directly from natural gas would be broadly distributed they need only look at the wealth distribution in the OPEC countries.

What set this country apart in the past was that our natural resources were kept within the U.S. and used to grow the greater economy. It will be interesting to see if any industry starts up in the area to take advantage of the gas supply. There was talk of plastics manufacturing.